Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Bingo.

It was a rhetorical question. My point was the conclusions of the study and how they woud break down subject to the constraints I outlined. I submit that the vast majority of gun ADs and NDs (accidental or negligent discharges) are the result of improper or nonexistent training by the owner, or access due to an improperly stored or secured firearm.

Even if you could implement all of the above and keep the Libertarians, NRA, no-guns-at-all Dems and free-guns-for-all Repubs happy you have done nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of those who will use them for violence except perhaps made it marginally more difficult to get one. If they can't get them legally, they will get them illegally.

Eliminating guns would work if you could come up with an air tight way to enforce it. But that option is political suicide. So we keep coming back to restricting access and every proposal I have read offered here or in the media ONLY restricts access to those who seek to obtain them legally and does little to make it harder to obtain them illegally.

snow cited a study that showed a correlation between the number of violent gun crimes in areas with "strict" gun laws. Of course there would be an overall drop. But if you peel back the onion layer you will find that while the number of overall gun crimes may have dropped, the vast majority of gun crimes committed were with illegally obtained weapons. So you've taken guns out of the hands of responsible owners, lowered the overall number of guns out of the population, but concentrated the illegally used or possessed guns.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 18, 2012 7:13am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

"If they can't get them legally, they will get them illegally."

You keep coming back to this. This might be true of a small minority of people, but it's hard to imagine any of the three most recent shooters -- in Aurora, Oregon and Newtown -- as the kinds of figures ready to navigate the frightening underworld of illegal arms trafficking. These were very young, anti-social, frightened kids. Where exactly does one go to purchase a gun on the black market?

In all these cases, the guns were purchased legally and easily. In one case, by the shooter himself. In another, he stole the weapon from a friend. And in Newtown, he got it from his mother, who purchased it legally in a state with some of the toughest laws in the country.

Do you really think it would have made no difference if those weapons had been illegal in the first place?

I think it's worth mentioning that Lanza's mom purchased the AR-15 after the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. I guess we can only speculate about what might have happened if the ban had been renewed, or (gasp!) strengthened.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 18, 2012 11:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Hey S&R--this is an EXCELLENT point that is overlooked completely...the folks that go on this sprees are NOT typical criminals. It just ISN'T true.

The real criminals that are so RARELY encountered in the imagined scenario that it simply isn't realistic to plan your defense against them (the classic homeowner blasts evil intruders scenario, etc., etc.; if they were, we'd hear about them ALL the time).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 18, 2012 11:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

How many encounters do you need to make your sample set valid?

My scenario wasn't imagined. I'm 1 for 1. Fortunately, no one was permanently hurt, but the young man walked with a limp for quite awhile.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 18, 2012 11:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

I don't think there are ANY exceptions to the "spree" folks are not criminals, right?

As to defense, sure, lots of exceptions--ie, homeowner stops criminal--but those don't magically evaporate with VERY strict gun control...people like you would still have them, but ave folks would not, and ave folks are NOT the ones that make up your exceptions.

Assume that makes sense: people who KNOW how to use guns in the rare exceptions will STILL have them, even with v strict regulation, BUT the imagined "ave joe blow" that is supposedly DENIED access to guns by a bunch of laws, just DOESN'T exist...In essence, the myth of it being a bunch of folks out there that have had their defense mechanism withdrawn is what I am talking about...not the few that really know what they are doing.

Really. It's a straw man. It's as corny as the "we need them to overthrow an oppressive gubermint" which is the so silly I can't imagine it being mentioned these days.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Dec 18, 2012 12:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

I'm not getting in to this, but it made me think of my old friends D & E. They would always tell us how badly we need guns in our home to protect from home invasion, yet they both smoked cigarettes and sometimes didn't buckle-up while driving. Always thought that was hilarious. D takes a drag off his Marlboro Red, exhales and continues about the dangers of strangers. HA!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 18, 2012 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

That is good; yeah, I said I wasn't getting into it TOO, but fell prey once again...maybe I need to go to a training course or some such, eh?

Clearly there needs to be some kind of "posting regulation" installed hereabouts by the feds, right? To keep idiots like me from chiming in on something nonDEAD that I already posted on at length (I hate to say it was the last time such a thing happened here in the US...sad).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DeadRed1971 Date: Dec 18, 2012 11:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Here in Maryland we had John Pontolillo, a Johns Hopkins student kill an intruder with a Samurai sword.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Dec 18, 2012 7:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

"So you've taken guns out of the hands of responsible owners, lowered the overall number of guns out of the population, but concentrated the illegally used or possessed guns."

I fail to see the logic of this. No one has taken away a single legally owned gun. Legal and responsible gun owners will take the necessary steps to own weapons - how does this take anything away? Legal drivers get licenses, legal cars are registered, legal sportsman get hunting or fishing licenses. And, by eliminating permissive gun shows and the patch-work of gun laws we have now, fewer illegal guns in future are in circulation - the concentration argument is DOA.

So now that we've all staked positions, had a good healthy dialogue... it's up to us all ("we the people") to move forward with ideas. What can we suggest to our leaders as possible ideas for improving this situation?